Sunbelt battle for #2?

Dariusb · #1 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 2:56 AM**

Dallas/Fort Worth has 7.5 million. Houston(7 million), Miami(6.2 million), Atlanta(6 million) and Phoenix(4.5 million). Do you think Dallas will maintain it's lead or will one of it's Sunbelt brethren snatch it away? Could this happen in 20, 30, 40 years or not at all? I know these things are impossible to pinpoint but it's just hypothetical.

bossabreezes · #2 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 3:38 AM**

Probably not Miami.

Probably yes Dallas as second for the foreseeable future. The only one that I could see significantly picking up growth again in the future is Phoenix due to outflow from California.

Dariusb · #3 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 4:59 AM**

That's interesting and Phoenix definitely has the land. I didn't pick Houston, although to some it seems obvious, due to flooding/hurricane. Then again I could be wrong. I know Atlanta was growing pretty quickly and has slowed down (correct me if I'm wrong). Then again it could once again go through periods of crazy growth.

jayden · #4 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 1:53 PM**

Dallas will likely hold that #2 spot

Centropolis · #5 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 1:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dariusb

It goes without saying that Los Angeles is the largest most dominant city/region and Dallas/Fort Worth(7.5 million) is #2 but for how long?

Really, though? I consider "the sunbelt" to be the low overhead, fast growth swath of the southern and southwestern U.S. that I don't think includes coastal California, anymore.

That would mean that Dallas is top dog.

iheartthed · #6 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 2:08 PM**

If California is the Sun Belt, SF probably has a good claim for #2. If California is not included, Dallas and Houston are probably #1 and #2.

I could see Atlanta ultimately overtaking Houston in the future.

Chisouthside · #7 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 2:20 PM**

If California counts as the Sunbelt, the Bay area is definitely #2.

Steely Dan · #8 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 2:48 PM**

considering the whole sunbelt from coast to coast as its own distinct regional entity seems silly to me.

miami, dallas, and LA are no more in a single region together than NYC, chicago, and seattle are.

which is to say that they simply are not in a single region together.

Obadno · #9 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dariusb

It goes without saying that Los Angeles is the largest most dominant city/region and Dallas/Fort Worth(7.5 million) is #2 but for how long? Houston(7 million), Miami(6.2 million), Atlanta(6 million) and Phoenix(4.5 million) round out the top 6. Do you think Dallas has a tight grip at #2 or will one of it's Sunbelt brethren snatch it away? Could this happen in 20, 30, 40 years or not at all? I know these things are impossible to pinpoint but it's just hypothetical.

What are we defining as "sunbelt" anything south of Mason Dixon?

I dont know if Id call Miami "sunbelt" although it is quite sunny.

Phoenix is at just about 5 million today and it is growing rapidly but I dont think it will beat Dallas at least not for several decades. I expect Phoenix growth to peter off somewhere between 7 and 8 million.

How much can it grow long term for the rest of the century when it isnt on a boom-town-pace but a stable pace... hard to guess I think that depends on a lot of things

Obadno · #10 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 3:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

considering the whole sunbelt from coast to coast as its own distinct regional entity seems silly to me.

miami, dallas, and LA are no more in a single region together than NYC, chicago, and seattle are.

which is to say that they simply are not in a single region together.

Agree within this broad term of sunbelt you have the Southeast, Southern Florida, the Deep south, the MId-south (Kentucky, Tennessee) the Carolinas/ Southern Virginia, Texas/Oklahoma, the Southwest/4 Corners and Coastal California

Each of these are there own regions with varying definitions and intra-regional economic connections and I think each region could eventually have its own dominant major Megapolitan metro + smaller metros within them. I mean we basically already see that.

iheartthed · #11 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 3:45 PM**

Miami is 100% Sun Belt. Southern culture is not the definition of Sun Belt.

I think the only reason why California's Sun Belt status is in question is because its major cities reached major status in parallel with the more traditional Manufacturing Belt cities. San Francisco also experienced a decline that is more similar to the Northeast than to a Texas or Florida city. OTOH, Phoenix and Las Vegas are undeniably Sun Belt.

Obadno · #12 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 3:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Miami is 100% Sun Belt. Southern culture is not the definition of Sun Belt.

I think the only reason why California's Sun Belt status is in question is because its major cities reached major status in parallel with the more traditional Manufacturing Belt cities. San Francisco also experienced a decline that is more similar to the Northeast than to a Texas or Florida city. OTOH, Phoenix and Las Vegas are undeniably Sun Belt.

Sunbelt is pretty loose and broad I dont think people would ever think about or care about the "biggest city in the sun belt" its not like Atlanta or LA economically or culturally have that much to do with each other despite both loosely being called sunbelt

Same as saying : Who is number 2 in the Snow Belt NYC is #1 but I think Seattle is making a case for # 2 over Chicago.

its just not how anyone views the country or how it works.

suburbanite · #13 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 3:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Miami is 100% Sun Belt. Southern culture is not the definition of Sun Belt.

I think the only reason why California's Sun Belt status is in question is because its major cities reached major status in parallel with the more traditional Manufacturing Belt cities. San Francisco also experienced a decline that is more similar to the Northeast than to a Texas or Florida city. OTOH, Phoenix and Las Vegas are undeniably Sun Belt.

I think a key characteristic of Sunbelt cities is that the growth is fueled in large part by accessibility of cheap, easy-to-develop land, of which the main California cities have little left (different if you count far East IE for LA I guess).

cabasse · #14 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 3:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dariusb

That's interesting and Phoenix definitely has the land. I didn't pick Houston, although to some it seems obvious, due to flooding/hurricane. Then again I could be wrong. I know Atlanta was growing pretty quickly and has slowed down (correct me if I'm wrong). Then again it could once again go through periods of crazy growth.

Atlanta's city center and areas adjacent (within the Beltline or so) will continue to improve a decent bit in the future, but the region seems to be unwilling to work together to really move forward on fixing transportation issues. It's happening some, with the additional sales taxes to fund light rail projects within the city limits, but not enough is being done outside. (we need commuter rail really, and there's almost no movement there, instead we're spending billions on HOT lexus lanes that cover the same existing territory.)

iheartthed · #15 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I think a key characteristic of Sunbelt cities is that the growth is fueled in large part by accessibility of cheap, easy-to-develop land, of which the main California cities have little left (different if you count far East IE for LA I guess).

I don't think that is distinct to the Sun Belt. I think almost all American metro areas (except the NE Corridor), including California, have developed that way. Particularly from 1950 - 2000.

iheartthed · #16 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno

Sunbelt is pretty loose and broad I dont think people would ever think about or care about the "biggest city in the sun belt" its not like Atlanta or LA economically or culturally have that much to do with each other despite both loosely being called sunbelt

Same as saying : Who is number 2 in the Snow Belt NYC is #1 but I think Seattle is making a case for # 2 over Chicago.

its just not how anyone views the country or how it works.

I think Sun Belt is generally understood to be the cities that grew rapidly in the post-industrial era. Their commonality is that they are 1) relatively warm and 2)mostly grew after 1950.

Obadno · #17 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cabasse

Atlanta's city center and areas adjacent (within the Beltline or so) will continue to improve a decent bit in the future, but the region seems to be unwilling to work together to really move forward on fixing transportation issues. It's happening some, with the additional sales taxes to fund light rail projects within the city limits, but not enough is being done outside. (we need commuter rail really, and there's almost no movement there, instead we're spending billions on HOT lexus lanes that cover the same existing territory.)

You are not getting trains, not until the cost of owning/driving a car via gas/time in traffic/cost to garage/taxes gives mass transit an appeal over driving.

In most "sunbelt cities" that wont happen for a very long time or if somehow all oil becomes extremely expensive.

Crawford · #18 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 4:27 PM**

Bay Area. If LA is Sunbelt, than Bay Area has to be Sunbelt too.

But if we're only including "relatively cheap, fast-growth, low regulation" areas, I'd say Dallas is (just barely) first and Houston and Atlanta roughly tied. But even these areas are trending towards an LA-style scenario where growth slows and costs and regulation increases. They wont be "Sunbelt" in 30 years.

Crawford · #19 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno

Same as saying : Who is number 2 in the Snow Belt NYC is #1 but I think Seattle is making a case for # 2 over Chicago.

Not in our lifetimes. Seattle's economy just surpassed that of Detroit. Its population is still well behind Detroit and it still has fewer HNWIs.

Seattle would need 50 years of incredible growth to match Chicago. Chicago has 10 million people and is probably in the top 10 metropolitan economies on earth. And this is factoring in the incredible Seattle transformation due to Amazon, and earlier, Microsoft.

cabasse · #20 Posted **Oct 31, 2019, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno

You are not getting trains, not until the cost of owning/driving a car via gas/time in traffic/cost to garage/taxes gives mass transit an appeal over driving.

In most "sunbelt cities" that wont happen for a very long time or if somehow all oil becomes extremely expensive.

You aren't wrong. The problem is that we aren't getting anything. Dallas and Houston are both blanketed by freeways and toll roads that make driving a car as easy as possible for their size/sprawl. Meanwhile in Atlanta, good luck getting across town in the suburbs. (like from Lawrenceville to Woodstock, two of the bigger burbs) We are going to be getting some more trains in the city soon, at least. Here's a good map of what's been approved for the currently allotted funds: